Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR813; 2009(4)MhLj478
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is a second appeal preferred by original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who have challenged the decree for partition and separate possession passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Nanded in Regular Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1984 decided on 26th October, 1989 and thereby reversing the judgment and decree dismissing the suit, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Biloli, in Regular Civil suit No. 302 of 1982 decided on 28th February, 1984.2. It is no more disputed that one Digambar More was resident of village Ratoli, Tal. Biloli, Dist. Nanded. Appellant No. 1 Nagorao is father and appellant No. 2 Venkati is brother of said Digambar. The family owns suit-lands described in plaint paragraph No. 1. It is case of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 - Premalabai that she was legally wedded wife of Digambar and respondent No. 2 Mahananda was born to them. Digambar died in an accident on 25th May, 1982. Relation between respondent No. 1 Premlabai and Digambar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR1271
S.S. Shinde, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. This application is filed for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 216/2008 registered with Chalisgaon Police Station for the offences punishable under s 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B, 201, r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.3. The said crime is registered on 19.10.2008 at Chalisgaon Police Station. This application is filed before this Court on 22nd November, 2008. The application filed for anticipatory bail of the present applicant on 23.10.2008 before the Sessions Court came to be rejected on 15.11.2008. Hence, this application.4. The facts as narrated in the application are as follows.The applicant is Ex-Director of Chalisgaon Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. He had performed his duties as permissible in law and had not recommended proposals of any relatives. It is further case of the applicant that he has not taken disadvantage of his position and there are no any outstanding dues to wards the applicant. The applicant was ele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009ACJ2822
K.U. Chandiwal, J.1. The insurance company (the appellant) has challenged the award of compensation passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in M.A.C.P. No. 60 of 1990, on the ground that the accident has taken place on 22.12.1989 at 11.30 a.m. and there was no policy or cover note issued by the appellant insurance company and secondly, respondent No. 2 (owner) has later obtained the cover note from the appellant on 22.12.1989 at about 4.30 p.m.2. The driver did not appear. Based on the available evidence, compensation of Rs. 1,26,000 was awarded with interest by learned Member.3. The insurance company examined Rauf to show that he works on behalf of the insurance company for collecting the insurance premium and on 22.12.1989, Abdul Aziz came to him at 4.30 p.m. at R.T.O. and obtained cover note from him. Copy of the cover note is at Exh. 66, as the Development Officer, R.S. Baheti used to handover blank cover notes to him. He had handed over the amount of cove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR445
Vazifdar S.J., J.1. The writ petition is allowed to be amended in terms of the draft tendered in Court and marked 'X'. The amendments to be carried out within two weeks from today.2. Even assuming that I have the jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition, I am not inclined to exercise any discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3(A). Admittedly, Writ Petition No. 2070 of 2007 identical to this writ petition was filed by the same petitioner in this Court.(B). By an order dated 1.10.2007, the learned Judge directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of back wages as per the order impugned in the writ petition, failing which the petition was directed to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. By an order dated 29.10.2007, the time to deposit the said amount was extended upto 19.11.2007.(C). The petitioner challenged the said orders by filing Appeal No. 8 of 2008 (The appeal was lodged on 14.11.2007 but numbered only later). There was no ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR402
Vazifdar S.J., J.1. By an Order dated 13.10.2008 A.M. Khanwilkar, J. noted that a question of law, which I will refer to shortly, arises in the present case. The learned Judge noted that if the question is answered in favour of the petitioner it could necessarily follow that the impugned action would not have been taken against the petitioner.The learned Judge further observed that as a short question is involved, instead of admitting the petition it would be appropriate that it is kept for final disposal at the admission stage. Accordingly, and with the consent of the parties, the writ petitions are disposed of finally at the admission stage.2. Further, the question involved in both the writ petitions is common. Both the writ petitions are therefore disposed by this common order.3. There are six petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2225 of 2008 and four petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2239 of 2008. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Administrators and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Divisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR279
K.K. Tated, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.2. Present Petition is filed by the Petitioners under Article 14, 19, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking declaration that the reservation of Petitioners' land is lapsed for not acquiring inspite of purchase notice issued by them under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are owners of land situated at Shirasgaon, Tq-Shrirampur, Dist-Ahmednagar bearing Gut No. 92 admeasuring 5 Hectors. The said land is within Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur - Respondent No. 5. It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent No. 5 prepared development plan for the development of the area of Municipal Council limits in which the Petitioners' land is situated. The development plan of Shrirampur was finally sanctioned by the Director of Town ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR808
Bhatia J.H., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately.2. Respondent No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 56/2001 claiming possession over certain property on the basis of a Will executed by his mother. The present petitioners are original defendant Nos. 1 and 3. Petitioner No. 1 is brother of respondent No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 is son of petitioner No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are original defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 6. They are also related to them. However, they were supporting the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, an affidavit of Bandu Haribhau Tajne, who was stated to be an attesting witness of the Will was filed in examination-in-chief. He was put to cross-examination on behalf of the present petitioners. As in examination-in-chief before the Court he had not verified the contents of the affidavit filed in examination-in-chief, the said Will...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR36
Borde R.M., J.1. The petitioner-management has raised challenge to the order dated 29.2.1996, passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad in Appeal No. 147 if 1993.2. Respondent No. 1-employee was inducted in service by the petitioner-Management by issuing appointment order on 27.7.1992. Respondent-employee was appointed as Lecturer in Junior College to teach subjects Economics and Marathi. It is stated in paragraph No. 2 of the appointment order that the appointment is purely temporary for a period of one year against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe category candidate. It is also noted in the order that on the expiry of said period, his services shall stand terminated without any notice. A letter came to be issued on 31.3.1993 informing respondent No. 1 employee that his appointment comes to an end on 30.4.1993.3. It further transpires that the Institution issued an advertisement for making appointment to the posts of Lecturers in the year 1993. It was mentioned in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR469
K.K. Tated, J>.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.2. The petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 and 14 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Secretary, State of Maharashtra dated 23-08-2004 by which respondent State of Maharashtra allowed respondent No. 4 to start primary school for 1stStandard for the academic year 2004-2005. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Public Trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and running Secondary School at village Chinchwan, Tq. Wadwani, District Beed. Initially the permission was granted to the petitioner to start Class Vth on 13-12-1962 and in course of time the recognition of the school was continued and it was granted permission to run Class from VIth to IXth Standard by order dated 12-03-1966. The petitioner further submitted that by order dated 22-06-2004...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR427; [2009]315ITR134(Bom); [2009]180TAXMAN87(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. These Appeals are in respect of assessment years 2001-2002 and 1996-97. The common question of law which would arise in both these Appeals reads as under:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the expenses incurred by the assessee for promotion films, slides, advertisement films and treating the same as capital expenditure? The principal contention based on which the Revenue has preferred this appeal is that the Tribunal while passing the judgment ignored the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patel International Films Ltd. : [1976]102ITR219(Bom) .2. The Respondent assessee has incurred expenditure on film production by way of advertisement for the marketing of products manufactured by them. It was their submission that these expenses are purely of revenue nature and they derive no enduring benefit to the company. They...
Tag this Judgment!